Solar Power hits the death spiral vertical rise in Australia

Solar installations are rapidly accelerating in Australia, surging in the last quarter by an extraordinary 482MW. This is partly due to rapidly rising electricity costs, but in the last quarter, especially amplified by an extra $2250 subsidy in Victoria which adds to current subsidies like the SRES (RET) which already cover around half the cost of installation.

This is obviously a market destroying practice but will be hailed as evidence that solar power is “surging” due to “falling prices” and “increasing demand”. More fake news.

In the land of the Renewable-Crash-Test-Dummy we’re hitting the death spiral. Every installation costs non-solar owners more (with the tally at $200pa and rising fast) and there are fewer non-solar owners left to pay. Obviously, the whole market has to be changed to ensure that solar owners pay a fair share of networking and backup costs.

If solar power was cheap, useful or competitive, it wouldn’t need the subsidies. Instead, the nation keeps adding more useless infrastructure and wondering why the price of electricity is rising.

Solar Panels are essentially useless most hours of the day, most days of the year, and sometimes the entire Eastern Seaboard of solar panels are only working at half speed even at midday. When they are working together they force the grid voltage as high as 253 Volts, making other equipment prone to breaking and even more costly to run. The dangerous voltages triggers some solar panels to cut themselves off, right at the peak time of day when they are actually working. Solar electricity is so unnecessary that when an eclipse wiped out California’s massive solar input, the price of electricity got cheaper.

Yes, but more likely, then along came Neville Wran, the national president of the Australian Labor Party from 1980 to 1986, and Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) from 1986 to 1991.

Yeah its been used as a political football for so long its difficult to know when the game started, also the privatisation of our Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in 1994 is another victim of political opportunism.

CSL was set up Founded in 1916 the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, an Australian government body focused on vaccine manufacture. in the following year……CSL was drawn into a serious public health disaster when a batch of its diphtheria toxin-antitoxin was implicated in the deaths of twelve children in what became known as the ‘Bundaberg tragedy’ of 1928……

In 1928, CSL also became involved in antivenene (antivenom) manufacture in conjunction with the snake venom research undertaken by Charles Kellaway at the Hall Institute. This led to the successful clinical testing of antivenene against tiger snake Notechis scutatus bite in 1930, and its commercial release in 1931. In 1934, the research on snake venoms was transferred from the Hall Institute to CSL under the direction of former snake showman, Tom ‘Pambo’ Eades.

Seems like a QUANGO seeking expansion to me.

It is certainly part of the Liberal Party manifesto that private enterprise should take the risks. not Government. The Libs have forgotten that now. But the Australian Conservatives have not.

Then the production of vaccines for a large percentage of the population was still being developed, with the improved trial periods and quality controls CSL successfully vaccinated against tetanus, polio, whooping cough through to HIV treatments.

My point is it was an Australian government body that was actually doing good for people and improving with experience, privatising something for the benefit of a few sometimes means many others lose out.

Peter, when the CSIRO was set up it was a great benefit to Australia, the a small population isolated from the rest of the world found it useful.

Business will do what business does but CSIRO should be doing the stuff that they can’t do.

The recent privatised idea of annual new flue vaccines worries me. How well are they tested when pushed out so quickly. Then there are the issues with the antidepressants industry. A dodgy bit of pharmacy stuff there that was discussed here a few years ago.

Governments are put there to lead, and in many areas CSIRO was used to make Australia a better place.
A practical, innovative scientific organisation that now seems content to drift along.

Given that you in Australia , like us in America have had an existing power generation and distribution system running for a lot longer than I’ve been alive and it’s worked all those years without significant problems or doubt about its future viability, let me make a strictly philosophical reply to,

CSIRO should have been given the task of developing a Solar energy system.

Why would you do that? I can’t name a single instance of government getting involved in anything that has not made things worse. Government trying to coerce behavior changes in the governed is, first of all, just a damned would-be dictator trying to get control over you and second, it simply doesn’t work. Even the most rural and isolated spots got electricity and if government had to step in an say you will supply them too, fine. But as far as I know that never actually happened, at least here.

If something, anything, you name it, is viable because there’s a real demand for it, someone will step in and provide it and it will happen because people will be voluntarily spending their money on something they see as beneficial. Witness such things as prostitution, drugs and even worse that thrive in spite of efforts to stop them. When there’s a willing buyer then there’s a willing supplier. Absent the demand for solar panels, who will try to sell them? And if there’s a demand ceated by isolated requirements as you suggest and it can pay a supplier to develop and supply it then it works. Otherwise not.

What you have the way it’s happening both there and here is people spending their money out of fear of doing without electricity, not spending it voluntarily. I’ve read everything Jo had to say about it and that’s the only possible conclusion.

Governments are instituted to provide for such things as the common defense, a system of courts and police to insure pubic safety and services that the people cannot provide themselves — streets and highways, etc. Electric power service began here and I’ve no doubt there because someone saw the benefit of it and people would buy it voluntarily for the same reason, they saw the benefit. Government may have the need to set safety standards or do other regulation to keep the playing field level for everyone. But I defy anyone to tell me that government anywhere is doing anyone any good by forcing a change in what works just fine and has worked about as well as it ever could work and done so for so long a time. It ain’t broke and doesn’t need fixing.

How much do you trust CSIRO? From what I read on this blog I would not trust them to walk dogs. I don’t trust any agency of government here to be working in my interest either.

Human affairs have never worked smoothly. There are too many conflicting needs that have to be taken care of. Then there are the conflicting wants and one of them is the people I probably don’t have to name who want control over the rest of us and the rest of us who don’t want them controlling us. Why should we give them even an inch of control? If we do they’ll end up having a mile every time. If there are problems it’s because working solutions take time and take support of the people. There was no problem in power generation and distribution that could not be handled without solar or wind mills until climate change suddenly said there was. Talk about your fake news.

Hi Roy, perhaps I should have started my comment with the statement that I was talking about the “old” CSIRO.
There are still many areas in Australia that can’t have grid power because they’re too far from main supply areas. To get power they would have to pay personally for the poles and wires.
Last weekend I managed to get away to stay overnight camping on a farm in the hills west of Newcastle where the nearest power was 5 km down a dirt track. To bring power to the three families sharing the farm would probably cost them $100,000 each.
All of them use some form of solar panels and battery arrangement.

The only reason I suggested giving the idealized version of the CSIRO the job of improving that farm scenario is because it would be a much smaller task than their current activity in the development of renewables.
Basically I had in mind giving them a task that was bound by the economic constraints of the users and by the science.
CSIRO was once a great thing for Australia but has been brought down, as you say, by the fly in the ointment; Human Nature.
The current CSIRO is too big, too sure of itself and trading on past glories. It needs to be reset to provide scientific advice and back-up to Australian industry but unfortunately most of our industry has gone overseas.
Perhaps the CSIRO could, like our industry, be shut down.

KK there is a problem with that, solar panels are a dead loss when trying to produce useful amounts of electricity. The hotter they get the less electricity they produce. This is something we engineers know and understand, it is the same with wind turbines, the hotter the inside of the housing gets the more likely the frequency of the inverters is to change causing more problems with control for the grid operators to deal with. And those are not the only problems see and consider how far Australia has gone to the dogs.https://climatechangedispatch.com/green-energy-alarmists-world/

Does anyone in Australia get annoyed
by Australian companies shipping coal
to China, where they burn it
for inexpensive electric power,
rather than Australians burning
their own coal for inexpensive
electric power at home.

It seems like China would buy all the coal
mined in Australia, that was not burned
in Australia.

The CO2 emissions would be about the
same no matter where the coal was burned.

Wasting money on expensive solar energy
power, while shipping coal to China seems like
a “bassackwards” policy that only a socialist
could invent !

It is recognised that so called developing countries have to be allowed to develop (ie. burn coal) to reduce poverty. Reducing poverty helps stabilise population. If you want to burn more coal you might try bringing back poverty and start populating.

And yet, the savings to the consumer are there, and not to be sneezed at. The problems with the grid are known and can be overcome, as part of normal upgrades and maintenance. Remember that everyone in the industry is making out like bandits, particularly the distribution companies. There are a number os schemes to help unit and apartment dwellers. Finally depending on which side wins the federal election, low income households will get assistance.

Sure Peter. Any problems can be overcome if you can steal enough money. Whats the cost? What are we giving up so we can get green unreliable electrons and feel like we are “obedient” citizens?

The savings you make are costs to other people, and they pay more than you save. Australia is a “Net loser”. The more solar we get, the poorer the nation becomes, the more jobs we destroy.

There is no productivity increase, no energy created that couldn’t be made cheaper and more reliably. Low income households only get assistance from forced payments from the middle class and other low income households.

Well, yes that is a valid viewpoint, and germaine to our current position in relation to all things energy related. As you point out, the market is distorted by subsidies, which transfers the real cost away from those installing these solar systems. But… (and you knew I’d have one). This could be ameliorated by developing a sound energy policy which gives all players certainty, the removal of all subsidies, and the use of the market to send the pricing signals necessary for competition. Otherwise, if they are handing out money, I’ll get in line quick smart.

As to the grid, these are assets which have a very long lifespan, I know of poles around Burke and Broken Hill which are over 100 years old, and show no deterioration. I would suggest that explicit in the contract that you enter with your supplier is a Quality of Service Guarantee, which should impel the distribution companies to make the changes necessary to ensure reliable delivery of power. Mind you this should have all started 10 years ago, but it is not in the commercial interests of these organisations to spend before they absolutely have to, and of course, they are also looking for government handouts.

You have a propensity to “blame” commercial operations for the poor policy development of the green/left socialists.

Yet you admit you’d “get in line quick smart” at the trough.

Consistency is not your strong point, unfortunately.

Don’t you see that if there were no subsidies there’d be no solar or wind generated electricity?

The subsidies are what make it possible for the private sector (mainly sycophantic crony capitalists in this case) to generate a profit from what is essentially an inefficient, unreliable and uncompetitive technology.

Oh so subsides for other forms of power are OK?
As to your question, we are moving to renewables, and that will happen in an inefficient and haphazard way, as we are too stupid to have an energy policy.

Any REAL energy policy based on logic and rational science, would be almost EMPTY of wind and solar.

The ONLY energy policy that makes sense is coal and gas HELE power plants with hydro and nuclear as required.

There is NO REASON for wind and solar to bet used anywhere but tiny niche out of the way places where delivery of RELIABLE power is not needed, or where it is too expensive to link to the electricity grid.

There is NO RATIONAL or ECONOMIC reason for using solar or wind as a major supplier to the grid..

Admittedly many of the origin’s of names are professions themselves. Smiths and Bakers are typical examples. That may be indicative of their predisposition for that sort of work (like artistic people like to draw, and musical people like to make music). It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to believe that there are some instances of genetic predisposition for jobs. But to be honest, I suspect the Norminative determinism is more of an “in joke” than a serious line of research.

Absolute minimum power consumption across he AEMO coverage area at 4AM every morning.

Yearly AVERAGE – 18000MW

Solar plant contribution NIL.

Rooftop Solar contribution NIL.

Solar power supporters have got nothing.

They’re not making out like bandits if they can actually DELIVER that amount of power, and it’s required not just at 4AM, but across the whole day. It’s the Base Load. Everything else is just added on top of that, including the 6.5% of (both) versions of solar power, averaging just 1600MW in its totality.

When I really started looking back in 2008, that minimum Base Load was 18000MW. At that time, I even went backwards and found that even six years before that, it was, umm 18000MW. And that was as far back as I could go at the time.

It hardly changes year in year out, no matter what is added, and what efficiencies are made.

That tells me, pretty much conclusively, that no matter how much they try, it’s not going to change.

It’s not a ….. ‘historical’ view. It’s the ‘actual’ view.

Every year (and it seems that these days it’s more often than that) someone comes along and says Base Load is an outdated idea.

It’s not a d@mned idea.

It’s a fact. An actual physical certainty.

It’s not an adjective for coal fired power.

It’s actual power consumption.

And it’s something that CANNOT ever be supplied by renewables, no matter how many of them they build.

Oh, and Peter Fitzroy, had you stuck around over the weekend, you would have seen that while wind power has increased its Nameplate over the last year (in just 12 Months mind you) from 4950MW to 6106MW, so around 1100MW extra, or plus 23% of Nameplate, that wind power’s actual percentage of power generated and delivered has gone down from 7.58% to 6.85% of all generated power.

Baseload power is a bloody simple concept. Draw a line across the troughs of daily usage, and contract someone to supply that 24 hours per day, and because it is a consistent supply it will be at a very low price.
Peak demand can then be met by the highly contrived RET ‘market’.

Where it has all stuffed up and cost the consumer a fortune (and lined the pockets of power companies) is by allowing bidding on what should have been (almost) permanently contracted out.

Any perceived ‘success’ in the gains of renewable power uptake has been one of power companies changing their generation mix to rort a rotten artificial market. And the misguided consumer knnejerk response to being robbed: installing subsidised (for now) home rooftop solar.

TonyfromOz, I did not know that reading your posts was mandatory, but from reading your previous posts I can see that you report on what was, but with no explanation of the why.
It could have been the wind farmers picnic for all I know /sarc off

Need to be a little careful when looking at percentages and switching between that and nameplate. Sure they installed more but delivered less in % terms. However if overall power delivered has risen then a reduced % may still be a bigger number than previous years.

However if overall power delivered has risen then a reduced % may still be a bigger number than previous years.

That’s the point here.

In the same data collection period of twelve Months, actual total power generation from every source has fallen, by 800MW on the hourly average in fact, from 24340MW to 23540MW, and that’s a fall of 3.3%. That includes rooftop solar power as well. (I use the hourly average here because that’s a little easier for the average person to understand rather than using actual delivered power. That actual delivered power is that average multiplied by the 24 hours in a day, and then divided by 1000 to convert to GWH, so, back then, it was 584.16GWH average per day, to what it is now, 564.96GWH average per day.)

So, wind power is generating less from a smaller overall. (1844MW average then, and 1612MW now)

Incidentally, the total renewables component (hydro, wind, solar plant, and rooftop solar) of the overall was 21.5% at the start of December. It has fallen every week since then, and is now only 19.46%, and that includes the best period for both versions of solar power, the Summer Months.

That’s despite wind power and both versions of solar power increasing their Nameplate.

Coal fired power is still above 70% of all power generation, (rooftop solar included) and just for the power plant generation, it’s 74% of all power generation.

It’s funny what you find when you actually do the data collection. Even I learn new things.

Peter, you miss the point. When there’s a demand for something and it can pay a supplier to provide it and the market is undisturbed by unnecessary nonsense, the the buyer will always find a seller. The relationship of buyer with seller will be stable. Everyone is as happy as it’s possible to be. There will always be those who struggle to buy electricity but that provides them with an incentive to become a better competitor. It should not provide government with an incentive to subsidize anyone.

When government comes along and says you will kiss my backside so we can reduce carbon emissions, the buyer to seller relationship gets broken very fast. I think you’re seeing that right now in Oz. What makes you think that more of what broke a working market in electricity will help?

Goodo – remove all subsidies on all generation. Impose costs for the use of the commons, why should my air quality be compromised for your profit. Also before any new coal power stations are built, I want see a fund set up to deal with the waste, like fly ash.

Yes, Fitz, let us do remove ALL subsidies of any sort from everyone. AND, let us apply an “Up Front” charge to the Wind and Solar installations for their retirement and recycle. Yes, please, let us do that.

AND, while we are at it, let us charge the entirety of ALL costs for transmission line extensions that are necessary to connect to those wind and solar sources.

AND, let us charge off the utility costs of “ancillary costs” related to voltage and frequency stabilization until or unless the solar and wind providers can compensate for the harm that they cause to the grid.

AND, let us charge to the wind and solar providers the costs related to ramping thermal power plants as necessary to absorb the solar and wind generated power when it is NOT needed.

AND, let us charge to the wind and solar providers for the costs of lost overhead expenses that are NOT paid for use of the mains transmission, distribution, and maintenance for connected providers who are not already reimbursing such charges.

AND, let the solar and wind providers bid absolute, firm delivery, of promised power in day ahead contracts or make up their inability to provide at market cost without penalty to either the rate payers, tax payers, or utility providers, without limit.

Yes. Let us have a level playing field. One in which no preference is shown towards any provider of power.

So then, you’re willing to hang your hat and your hope on a change to renewables that has already been riddled through and through with corruption ??? And it has been, otherwise Joanne Nova would have been out of business years ago. I guess that pricing the Australians right out of electricity who keep the wheels of society turning is OK with you.

You may not remember the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — among others — but I do.

Better to be able to say, “Never let the corrupt be the enemy of the honest.”

There is but one form of assistance needed: it’s called Australian coal. The bulk of it assists people in Asia (highest earning export commodity for 2018, accounting for $66 billion in export revenue) so they can make stuff and do stuff. We want Australian coal to assist Australians in making stuff and doing stuff.

Coal will even be useful in dismantling piles of impious, insulting renewables as those woeful antique contraptions fade, crumble and fall apart. Handy stuff, coal.

How’s that for a valid viewpoint, Germaine? Germane enough to our current position in relation to all things energy related? Can I offer any more assistance?

Oh – that old line, if we don’t do it someone else will. Lovely to see the old discredited tropes again, like a zombie apocalypse and carrying about as much truth. Coal is now a stranded asset, even this blog admits that unless a good socialist government like the LNP builds a coal fired plant, it won’t happen. You are happy to cry but but but renewables are inefficient, and they are subsidised, and then in the next breath demand a mandated building of coal fired plants. Tell me how that is not a subsidy?

Well, you see, the other Peter Fitzroy said he favoured the adoption of new HELE coal, even without the albatros of CC, and that he’d vote for it.

I wouldn’t call that Peter Fitzroy a zom just because someone grabs his identity and uses it to preach against coal. Moreover, I can see Peter Fitzroy Mark 1′s point. No matter who builds a spanking new coal plant, Lib or Lab, socialist or Genghis…it’ll be the pants of the ants. It will rock and it will roll.

An expenditure is only a subsidy if you tip it into antiquated, under-performing, non-returning white elephants. Australia still runs on coal, though we treat it like a beaten-down serf who lives out the back and does all the heavy work while we invite feeble fashionista technology into the drawing room for sherry and witty repartee.

Pete Mark 1 would understand. Put centuries supply of the best Permian Black together with the latest HELE tech, and you are cookin’.

By the way, for a “stranded asset” our coal took an awful lot of boat trips to Asia in 2018.

Then that is the exact definition of a subsidy.
I do support HELE plants, but the funding for such should be raised in the capital markets, but that will not happen. The reason that the original plants were built and subsidised by various governments is that ROI for these is low, but has a long tail. Most private capital is invested in the exact opposite, and so the government had to step in.

It would if all the solar and wind subsidies were scrapped, along with mandated feed-ins, the RET and all the other anti-CO2 garbage.

It is these and political anti-CO2 nonsense that has held back the updating of current coal fired power to the most modern standards.

Certainly in the current anti-progress regime with all the carbon nonsense hung like a sword of Damocles over their heads, there is not will to even keep current coal-fired power station maintenance up to scratch, let alone build new infrastructure, so only a government can do it.

Yep. Your money should go to building a HELE like it goes on all kinds of infrastructure and amenities. It should not go to building rubbish infrastructure, of course, however much attracted you are to wasteful globalist gunk.

Am I a socialist? Could be. I believe in all kinds of social programs and benefits and public initiatives. I just have good taste in which ones and how. That’s the conservative in me. I don’t have a “wing”, just my conservatism.

The Posh Left and GeeUppers think money should go round a long circuit till it doesn’t look “public” any more and can get skimmed as it goes. They call it “the market” for some reason…or for no reason, actually.

If NSW wanted a new Hele, then obviously the Federal government would become involved as the underwriter. Angus Taylor could put it to tender and a shady shelf company out of Hong Kong would most likely be the winner.

Coal is now a stranded asset, even this blog admits that unless a good socialist government like the LNP builds a coal fired plant,

This blog says nothing of the sort. The free market is still building coal power plants anywhere there is a free market. Renewables are still uncompetitive without subsidies — a dead end of politico-fashion-tech.

In Australia the government has screwed the market so badly that if the LNP govt bought Liddell it would just be a bandaid socialist event trying to undo the damage created by Big Socialists who destroyed our cheap grid.

So at the moment we need to have the government pay for a HELE plant? I do not want my tax dollars doing that. If a HELE plant is what is needed, then let the capital markets raise the finance. Or is it that the ROI is so abysmal that it has to be government funded (and/or underwritten). Without a clear policy we are stuffed.

Or is it that the ROI is so abysmal that it has to be government funded (and/or underwritten).

Which is of course, not the case for coal, but totally the case for wind and solar.

Careful PF — people will think I’m paying you to say things that support us.

PS: The only policy we need is “A Free Market”. Get the government out of generation. Let it manage the natural monopoly — the wires and distribution — make that state owned, and make the Minister personally responsible, not some Qango “Statutory” fakely independent thing.

Yep, except I would make it a ‘libertarian’ free market, so all costs and externalities are priced. I have no particular barrow to push on a technology front. To the distribution question, I agree, QOS can (as historically documented) be cheaper under State management.

Still, now that the Posh Left has gone beyond “market” and is full-Monty libertarian I guess we can expect to hear quite a lot about externalities. They have the advantage of being very elastic. (I dare say there are no internalities, like when something actually works properly.)

I could never get past the first page of an Ayn Rand novel…but I would not take a free wave generator (plus complimentary steak knives) from anyone who uses the word “externalities”. Put it down to my fear of elastic.

Great to see you suggesting that farmers and people eating food should pay compensation to the coal fired power stations for the atmospheric CO2 they release and that is THE plant food for all plants on Earth.

That is one HUGE externality that the coal fired power stations have given for free for MANY years.

ABC, 2GB keep doing stories about voters should be careful not to believe “fake news” on social media which could be intended to influence our election. meanwhile, they allow Labor to have as one of their main slogans – invest more in renewables for cheaper electricity.

no downside here:

15 Apr: EnergyMatters: 2020 vision: Rooftop solar panels to exceed output of Liddell power station says Green Energy Markets
Rooftop solar panel systems could generate more energy than the retiring Liddell coal-fired power station by the end of 2020, according to Green Energy Markets (GEM)…

15 Apr: PV Mag: High energy prices set to grow Australia’s rooftop PV installations by 2 GW in 2019
First-quarter data from Green Energy Markets shows double the uptake of small-scale rooftop solar on the same period last year as record numbers of residential and business consumers seek to reduce their electricity bills. The tendency for installations to increase toward year end suggests that more than 2 GW of solar will hit the rooftop tiles this year. How could this become a cautionary tale?
by Natalie Filatoff
“The Victorian Government rebate has really turbocharged sales in Victoria,” said Green Energy Markets’ Tristan Edis, speaking at the Smart Energy Conference this month. “It’s also spectacular in that we’re seeing ongoing robust sales in other states as well, with perhaps the exception of Western Australia.”…https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2019/04/15/high-energy-prices-set-to-grow-australias-rooftop-pv-installations-by-2-gw-in-2019/

The negative side effects of rapidly increasing solar power is exactly the reason the politicians are supporting the activity. The politicians want to destroy the grid, the economy, and the effectiveness of technological civilization. All for the expressed purpose of having unlimited coercive power over the impoverished population. They also do it BECAUSE they too will experience the downside and may themselves be impoverished and extinguished. They hate the responsibility for being human so much, they welcome their desired goal of the destruction of the mind of man.

Insanity? you doubt? Look again.

Vote in better people? You can’t do that until the general population holds better ideas as true. Meaning actually true rather than pretend true. Once that is achieved, you will have better people to choose from but not one instant sooner.

Some, perhaps, are spineless sea slugs (with apologies to all the real sea slugs out there)who violate what little moral code they have. Most virtue signal because they have no moral values to offer. At their core, they know it and seek power and money as an anesthetic to mask their inner emptiness and lack of self identity. This applies to both the followers and leaders of the debacle. They do not and never have meant well. Otherwise they could not be so consistently wrong about everything they do and promote. It is a life long life style choice.

15 Apr: RenewEconomy: Solar dominated renewable energy world possible by 2050, and cheaper
by Giles Parkinson
A global energy system – including heat and transport – that is 90 per cent renewables and dominated by solar, is not only possible by 2050 – it will also be cheaper.
A 4-year study from Finnish-based LUT University and the German-based Energy Watch Group (LINK) looked at how to meet the 1.5°C target of the Paris climate treaty, and found that the most effective, quickest and cheapest means was to switch just about everything to electricity, and power it with solar and other renewable energy technologies.
“A global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport, and desalination before 2050 is feasible,” the study concludes. In fact, the authors say, it could be done quicker than that…

The major finding of the LUT report is that the shift to electrify just about everything – heat, manufacturing, transport and desalination – combined with a growing population and economic growth means that total global electricity generation will be four to five times higher 2050 than it was in 2015, or 150,000 terawatt hours…

Currently, according to AEMO data as tracked by Anero.id and Tony, large solar generation peaks at about 1.5 GW and rooftop solar about 4.5 GW around midday, to contribute to market demand of about 24 GW. But of course when the sun doesn’t shine, to meet the evening peak other reliable generators must be ready to deliver.
Now consider, if solar doubles in the next couple of years to deliver 12 GW at midday, and wind increases output from its current average 1.7 GW to say 4 GW, that leaves only 8 GW for other generators. Yet sufficient capacity must be retained to still meet the evening peak demand above 30 GW.

This is what the general public just don’t get, listening to overnight ABC radio the announcers, guests and call in’s all believe that dirty evil coal powered generation cannot ramp up and down fast enough compared to hydro and that spinning reserve is a terrible waste of resources and unnecessary pollution.

What they fail to acknowledge is how steady coal power delivery is, how much cheaper it is, and CO2 is not a pollutant!!

Renewables are just add-ons for decoration. Useless for a grid until they have some means of storage of excess generation and cover times when supply is low.
That means installation of vastly excess capacity and excessive storage, which will shove up prices.
We have Flapping Mouths, like Giles and Peter, assuring us that renewables are really cheap when their introduction forced up electricity prices and gave us more blackouts. “All will be well” they cry when we add enough renewables so the price will go down – and little pigs will fly.
And the cost of storage? Apparently free from the Fairy Godmother, or the Easter Bunny.

It’s mythical subsidies. They claim that the conventional producers get to use existing installations for distribution.
Coal fired (and gas) pay royalties on their fuel. And those existing installations were put in by State Governments when they owned the power stations, and they got the costs from those electricity producers.

As I understand it, the main argument is around diesel fuel excise rebate. The mining industry is exempt. Treasury says the Fuel Rebate is not a subsidy. Of course, all the green/left socialists know better than Treasury when it comes to sucking on the teat.

As the Productivity Commission noted in 2012 ‘The fuel tax credit scheme is designed to relieve industries of the excise that they pay on the petrol and diesel they use. As Treasury notes “… fuel tax credits are not a subsidy for fuel use, but a mechanism to reduce or remove the incidence of excise or duty levied on the fuel used by businesses off-road or in heavy on-road vehicles”‘.

I referenced the Productivity Commission with the work of the Parliamentary Library.

Nevertheless, this is the killer paragraph for those green/left economic illiterates:

Taxes on intermediate goods—that is, goods used to produce other goods—can reduce output and living standards. Public finance theory indicates that taxes should not be imposed on intermediate goods because taxes on intermediate goods distort the allocation of factors of production—land, labour and capital— between intermediate goods and final goods. Reducing taxes on intermediate goods reduces this distortion and so increases total output.

Consistency counts. That’s also why the GST is only levied on final goods and services. The GST on intervening inputs count as an input credit at the final stage.

These filthy lairs need to be called out every time they call a tax deduction a subsidy. A subsidy is when a company receives more in handouts than they pay in taxes. ‘Sustainable’ energy subsidies generally are NOT offset in the least by taxes they pay, since they generally run at a loss.
Allowing people or companies to keep money they earned is NOT a subsidy!

AND a quick scan of Yonnie’s link indicated that the “oil and gas subsidies” were US centric. Here they pay royalties, end of story. But the US, today, is the world’s largest petroleum producer. From an economic POV it must be working..

We all know that the US is the world’s greatest debtor nation. But who is going to call in the liquidators? They look like the best house in a run down neighbourhood.

Total energy subsidies in Australia add up to $75,000,000 pa. which is paid by the federal government.

ALL of it, 100%, goes to climate mitigation projects, about $13.5 million to renewables. The loop hole the science deniers use is that $61.5 million goes to carbon capture (clean coal) projects, which are part of the coal industry. So the science deniers claim that coal subsidies are 4 times more than renewable subsidies.

The truth is that coal power pays state governments a rent tax on the coal they burn, the Victorian socialist government increased this tax by 300% with the intent of driving coal power out of business by bleeding it dry. Hazelwood has already gone and now Victoria is subject to brown outs on heavy usage days.

The rebate isn’t a gift. The miners pay the tax on delivery, only getting the rebate if/when they can prove the diesel was used within the lease. No way can any fuel used in a state registered vehicle be rebated. The commonwealth gets a free loan on the tax while the fuel is in storage and the time paperwork takes to be processed.

My son installed expensive hardware/software in mines which helped with proving use.

Subsidies via statutory effective life caps
Australia also pays out large subsidies through statutory effective life caps, which allow for accelerated depreciation and a shorter write-off period for many vehicles. These tax deductions cost almost $2 billion worth of taxpayers’ money each year.

Peter, I read over what I wrote and I’ll be damned if I “said” anything. I asked you a question. When a question on this blog is directed towards a blog reader (the questionee), there are several acceptable courses of action. The questionee can ignore the question. The questionee can answer the question without elaborating–which in this case means a simple “yes” or “no” response. The questionee can answer the question and then elaborate on his/her answer. Finally, the questionee can (a) answer the question, (b) elaborate on his/her answer, and (c) ask follow-up questions of his/her own. What is not acceptable, boorish even, is to avoid answering the original question, and in lieu thereof respond with a pair of your own questions.

Reed, what do you mean then? Your statement “is it also a subsidy if you get to keep the money you earned” implies that somehow you do not not get to keep the money you earned. Are we talking 100%, or 1% As it stands your statement is nonsense

14 Apr: LA Times: After second recall, Toyota Prius electrical system is still overheating
By Ralph Vartabedian
Felo had taken the Prius to a Toyota dealer a few weeks earlier for a 2018 safety recall. New software was installed to fix an overheating problem in the electrical power system. Yet when Felo hit the accelerator pedal, a key electronic component called an inverter overheated and fried itself.
“I was lucky nobody was behind me because I would have been rear-ended,” recalled Felo, a salesman at an REI retail store. The car was towed to the dealer, which gave Felo the bad news: It would cost $3,000 to replace the shoe-box sized unit.

Felo’s experience and others like it are raising questions about the adequacy of Toyota’s attempts over the last five years to stop overheating in the Prius electrical system, and why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hasn’t taken stronger regulatory action…

15 Apr: RenewEconomy: It’s time for a smarter RET that recognises flexible generation
by Keith Lovegrove
(Keith Lovegrove is the Managing Director of ITP Thermal (www.itpthermal.com), one of the companies in the ITP Energised Group)
The opposition is advocating a 50% renewable electricity target by 2030 – as are several states – and the current federal government continues to suggest negative consequences from too much renewable generation.

It seems Labor will go the election with the actual detail of how 50% might be achieved saved for later. ***That is probably good as what we don’t need is rushed detail that fails to carefully anticipate future perverse outcomes…

Fundamentally, what we need is a policy that can take us all the way to 100% zero emissions electricity generation and do it with the orderly transition that the Finkel review so obviously pointed out is desirable…

Some significant fraction of generating capacity in the system needs to be dispatchable in nature. To date, the added VRE in the system has been balanced largely by existing dispatchable fossil fuel generation (ie coal and gas).
However around 15GWe of coal plants are expected to retire by 2040…

15 Apr: AFR: Ben Potter: Wind farm nobbled by clean energy boom
The Australian Energy Market Operator is curtailing generation from the 200-megawatt Silverton Wind Farm near Broken Hill, which is owned by QIC and the Future Fund and supplies AGL Energy, to between a quarter and three-eighths of capacity as part of its effort to protect the grid, which is struggling to accommodate a runaway boom in wind and solar energy.

AEMO is also requiring more new wind and solar projects to install costly equipment to protect the grid’s “system strength” while longer-term solutions – such as new high-voltage interstate inter-connectors which can cost more than $1 billion – are run through a rigorous regulatory investment approvals process.

In the case of Silverton, AGL says the wind farm is constrained to just 45MW during the day, when solar farms are generating, and 76MW at night. The energy retailer is counting on the wind farm to help replace its ageing Liddell coal-fired power station, which is due to close in 2022…

Other projects have had to install synchronous condensers at a cost of $10 million to $20 million, including solar farms near Broken Hill in western NSW. Last year French developer TotalEren was one of the first to be hit, and had to install one at its 200MW Kiamal Solar farm in north-west Victoria to get a grid connection. ElectraNet, the South Australian transmission company, spent $80 million on three synchronous condensers last year…

Same logic as the head of Get Up saying he wants to destroy and eliminate right wing politics. They lack the confidence in their own dogma and its ability to sway the populace so they go the negative and destructive path of removing voices other than their own.

14 Apr: Forbes: Renewable Energy Could ***Save $160 Trillion In Climate Change Costs by 2050
by James Ellsmoor
(James Ellsmoor is a Forbes 30 Under 30 entrepreneur, dedicated to his passion for sustainable development and renewable energy. James is Co-Founder and Director of Solar Head of State, an international nonprofit working with governments in the Caribbean and Pacific islands to raise awareness of renewable energy through high-profile solar installations and associated publicity campaigns. A digital nomad, James has worked and traveled in over 50 countries and consults for leaders in NGOs, the private sector and government on topics related to sustainable development and entrepreneurship. His work extends into climate change policy, renewable energy and travel and he has particular expertise in small island developing states SIDS)

New findings published by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) have emphasized the need to scale up efforts to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy…
The Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 outlines how the world can successfully implement large-scale renewable programs that will not only help reduce carbon emissions but improve global socioeconomic development. The analysis provided by IRENA shows that global energy demands are expected to double by 2050, and that 86% of global electrical needs could be met by renewable energy within that same timeframe. A large scale up from current levels, the extra energy load would be carried mostly by wind and solar installations…

“global energy demands are expected to double by 2050, and that 86% of global electrical needs could be met by renewable energy”

The unreliable sources likely won’t be able to meet the new demand or that from the retiring of existing equipment — both regular stuff and the wind and solar built this century.
Investors won’t want to fund that other 14% nor all the backup for the 86%. Nations (via taxes and fees) will have to build/support/own all of this stuff, new and old.
I guess that is what some people want.

Being a member of ieee I find statements like this, from that article:

“Climate scientists have definitivelyNOT shown [PDF] that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a looming danger. Whether measured in dollars or human suffering, climate change threatens to take a terrible toll on civilization over the next century. To radically cut the emission of greenhouse gases, the obvious first target is the energy sector, the largest single source of global emissions.”

from it totally absurd, why on earth can educated people believe this rubbish. The one thing that annoys me most. Unfortunately the IEEE get money from the US govt therefore….

Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.

Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.

The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

Let us look at “Govt provided tax subsidies” for various forms of generation. I’m using US data since it is more readily available. That said, the scale of comparison would be only more dramatic where renewable subsidies are larger.

In 2007, USA, “For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour. The bottom line: traditional fuels continue to be more efficient and cost-effective than renewable fuels, which is why EIA forecasts show them representing 91 percent of energy consumption in 2030.”

In 2010, “Per the EIA, on a per MWh basis we subsidize natural gas and coal by about $0.64 per MWh, and we subsidize nuclear by about $3.14 per MWh. In comparison, we subsidize wind by about $56.29 per MWh, and solar by an astronomical $775.64 per MWH”.

On a “dollar for dollar subsidy basis” In 2016, Fossil fuels provided 78% of generated power, Nuclear 10%, with renewables of all forms comprising 12%. Wind and Solar comprised 90% of all federal subsidies while providing 3% of generated power. On a basis of USD Subsidy per MWh generated, Solar received USD 43.75 and Wind received USD 5.75.

In 2017, “On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined. However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).”

The point of all of this is to demonstrate that the cost of Solar and Wind is far beyond its value in the marketplace as compared to other generation technologies and fuels. Expanding the base of such expensive and unreliable power on the backs of taxpayers and rate payers is a functional recipe for National Economic Suicide. I, for one, hope that AU comes to its senses before the economic, social, and national, train wreck becomes unavoidable.

Most of us now without solar panels on the roof are lower income folk. We are renters. We are pensioners and people working in lower income jobs. We are the folk who were not clever enough ( or maybe too honest ) to get into the solar roof top scam that a lot of our fellow Australians have done.

What to do about it ?

I am coming to the conclusion that the only way to stop the solar rooftop madness is for all the rest of us, ( the 70-80% ) who subsidise these installations, to refuse point blank to pay the subsidy.

How ? We we already know the extent of the subsidy per customer per annum. It’s roughly $200 and rising. So with each quarterly account we deduct $50.00. with a note to the retailer stating we refuse to subsidise solar power and telling them to get it from the bloody government.

If just a couple of us did this we would be singled out an could even have power cut off. But if a huge number of people did it.. ( Most of the non solar panels folks )
then their god damned subsidy rort is shown up for what it really is… A scam !

the cost seem appalling even wit the subsidy. I got a 250W (second hand) panel for $100. So that is 10 panel for a grand. So one could put up your own for not much without subsidy. Some invertors are less than a grand too.

we already know the extent of the subsidy per customer per annum. It’s roughly $200 and rising. So with each quarterly account we deduct $50.00. with a note to the retailer stating we refuse to subsidise solar power and telling them to get it from the bloody government.

Campbell Newman, when Qld Premier, planned to take the solar subsidies out of the electricity bill and pay them out of state coffers. Good idea! That might constrain state govs. enthusiasm for ever more solar. In our wisdom we voted him out.

There is still time before the broader population understand the uneconomic nature of intermittents. Right now the small scale solar are winning the race because they have the highest priority access to the market. Their only control is system over voltage. Distributors are working to get the power back up the grid to avoid this condition. Retailers get lower cost power from rooftops than the wholesale market so they support rooftops.

If you have a roof then put solar panels on it and enjoy the government largesse while it lasts. If Labor get in it will be a decade or more before it unravels.

As the grid power costs climb, it is getting very close to off-grid solar plus battery being the economic choice in Australia. With panels bought and paid for, largely by those who do not have panels, that becomes a sunk cost when considering the investment in batteries.

The grid was dead economically once the first intermittents were permitted priority access.

Rick: I agree with your assessment. That said, those who need an affordable fuel driven alternative when the sun isn’t shining might look at the “slow speed diesel” “Lister Type” cold start diesel engines. They are very stingy with fuel and have been known to last for 50 years.

I’m not promoting anything except the idea of fuel efficient local generation for individual use. Much better than the high speed gasoline engine driven alternators in terms of fuel efficiency and engine life expectancy. Sometimes the old tech is pretty good stuff.

We have a Southern Cross YC that has been in front line service on a bore since 1940. 7 hp at a dizzy 900 rpm, though throttled back for the pumphead.

I have had the injector and fuel pump serviced. Apart from that as far as known locally it has not had a spanner on it – or at least the bloke most likely to have done so hasn’t and doesn’t know of anyone else that did.

Still starts on first compression after the Southern Cross glug of oil and uses about 2 gallons of diesel in a 10 hour run.

Due to that glug of oil I guess particulates on start-up would cause a modern EPA-ite to have a heart attack

It looks to me like most people (allot I talk to) put up solar to ‘save’ money on their power bills. Not to supply the grid.
Someone I know did that early on and now cant increase his inverter to above 2kW or he looses the 45c subsidy he gets.

Yes, I am sure this is the case. I have considered installing solar panels just so I can rid myself of the “daily supply charge”. No matter how little electricity I consume I get charged $1.30 / day delivery. In summer when we use the barbie and hot showers are not required ( we still shower just with cool water ) we can get our electricity useage down to about $1.10 /day. In total not much you say, but as finances are reasonabley tight anything saved can be re- invested back into wine, women ( the wife ) and the occasional song.

They are playing with words really, the FIT is part of reducing bills and its supplying the grid, even if to no good effect. I have friend who is in exactly the position you describe, however his system was an oversized FIT harvester. He got greedy and wanted to put in more but it was going to affect his lucrative status quo which still has years to run.

Cathedrals all around Europe will be getting ready for an uptick in visitors. Notre Dame had 13 million + a year visiting. All the people trying to get their cathedral and castle fix in Europe will need to look elsewhere. The cathedral in St Denis is very intersting and historic if not grand, but sadly that area has become a bit of a no go zone for many visiting the new Europe.

There are a couple of items in this article that are highlights for me.

1. In his forwarding of the link, its author, Willem Post, adds an additional following conclusion, also based on his analysis there: “Large-scale solar cannot exist on the grid without expensive large-scale batteries.”
For me, the deep spikes in the chart at the link make that point very clearly: if batteries are the only source of the necessary fast-acting response, then batteries are required. This being the case, then the only appropriate policy is that the operator of any such solar installation be required to provide a suitable battery at its own expense on the installation’s side of the connection point to the grid.

2. As a very interesting aside, I also found the third dot point under the heading “Notes” in the article to be extremely interesting: “Tesla had to airship the entire Tesla supply from the US to Australia to comply with tight schedules.”

One has to ask: was the additional CO2 emissions requirement resulting from such a means of transport over conventional sea-freight subtracted from any claimed CO2 emissions reductions resulting from the operation of the Hornsdale renewable generation facility?
I suspect not.

Similarly, I would like to see an analysis by competent persons that addresses both the land use and environmental impacts of large-scale solar PV and wind energy projects. This analysis would also address the obtaining of accurate estimates of the CO2 emissions resulting from ALL aspects of the provision of these generators. Such an analysis would address the CO2 emissions resulting from the following:
1. The extraction, refining and manufacture of the enormous quantity of material that comprises these installations,
2. The land-clearing and road-building civil works requirement for each such project,
3. The transport of what is, relative to other forms of generation, the large quantity of these components from the point of manufacture to their installation on the site.
4. This analysis would similarly address in addition such impacts resulting from any necessary battery backup requirements.

I think that such an analysis might result in some unpleasant surprises for renewables advocates.

Given that, in Australia at least, with its ban on nuclear power, all wind and solar PV installations at present require ongoing, hot-ready, backup from conventional, dispatchable fossil-fired generation, I suggest that it is of great importance that accurate estimates of the CO2 offsets, if indeed there are any, provided by these, so-called “renewable”, generation sources, be meticulously and rigorously determined.

Well done Jo – yet again you have produced an excellent analysis showing the utter stupidity and futility of policies that support the pursuit of renewables.

Except when they are hail damaged.
High costs of Inverters.
High cost of Storage batteries if power needed 24/7.
High costs water and labor too clean them.
Pollution only when end of life, see hail damage.
Poor performance when temperature soar to 40+ degrees.

Well the paper does go into the effect of temperature upon PV performance.

what is extraordinary is we are in the middle of an election campaign – heavily focused on so-called RE and this story has been reported on by NONE OF THE MSM! unbelievable:

the two minor mentions, same story, which do not even come up in a simple search – you have to know exactly what you are looking for:

Workers Sent Home as Contractor Files for Insolvency
5CS – 15 Apr 2019
Workers at the $480 million Lincoln Gap wind farm near Port Augusta have been sent home after International contractor Senvion filed for self-administration proceedings…

Thanks Bill,
I wonder what government subsidies are harvestable from this one? For how long would the full dam produce at its 250 MW max? And is wind-sourced power adequate for the refill?
Cheers,
Dave B

One key question is where is the water comes from. The big mine hole at Kanmantoo is about 30 ks from the Murray river or about 60 ks from Lake Alexandrina – as the crow flies.

Mt Barker District council does have sewerage treatment plant which provides recycled water.But a lot of it is already sold for irrigation in the district.

Another issue is exactly how much power does it take to pump the water back uphill to the mine site. That probably depends on the height which the water is pumped..But a couple of hundred meters would be needed to get any power out of the hydro water scheme when it was flowing down hill. powering the turbines.

And I wonder is there any major power line supplying the amount of current needed ? I suspect Not as it’s out in the boondocks !

Give it a few years and there will be some management claim of a “perfect storm of events” that mean the project will not go ahead. It will follow the well worn path of wave energy, tide energy, hot rocks, solar thermal and bankrupt fans. Some cream will have been skimmed for initial studies, consultancies and maybe even some fences and basic earthworks. Rinse and repeat, you can make a living out of it.

15 Apr: Utility Drive: Renewable procurement gaps pose risk for California’s climate goals, but what solution is best?
A new bill may capture broad agreement about the need for a central backstop procurement entity — but doubts about it remain.
by Herman K. Trabish
The state’s massive renewable resource portfolio has gaps in it that threaten the reliable delivery of electricity, according to a March 18 proposed decision in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) integrated resource planning docket. The docket was designed to address reliability in planning by assuring that variable resources are adequately balanced by resources that are available when needed…

The CPUC must decide whether the LSEs’ combined plans will deliver “a reliable and affordable electric system” while meeting California’s mandated climate goals, Administrative Law Judge Julie Fitch wrote in the March 18 proposed decision (LINK).
That will require balancing “existing and new resources” with “baseload and intermittent resources” made up of “renewable, storage, and conventional fossil-fueled resources,” Fitch wrote. In the LSEs’ filings, “there is inconsistent, and in some cases, nonexistent, recognition of these realities.”…https://www.utilitydive.com/news/renewable-procurement-gaps-pose-risk-for-californias-climate-goals-but-wh/552184/

When solar power was introduced in the UK, questions were asked as to what would happen when most houses had solar panels and the remaining few houses were providing all the subsidy. No answers were forthcoming from the useless politicians.

in many parts of SA 253v is resting night voltage, try 264v has been seen, above 253v new inverters are trimmed or output reduced, at 258v they shut down, its a major issue, utility companies make more money at higher voltages, forces you to use more power than required, most appliances only require 220v and longer wire runs especially n the country, need higher voltage at the start to achieve an acceptable voltage at the end, its a major problem.

Jo Diesel rebates don’t have a regional basis, it applies to stationary diesel motors and mining and farming and irrigation, diesel that doesn’t use the road network ie tractors, bulldozers etc so generators don’t get subsidies, the 38-40c rebate is for the non-road use diesel consumed as the current price of diesel has this 38-40c built in.